Westlands Water District Groundwater Warren Act Contract

Draft Environmental Assessment

EA-15-001

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation March 2015

Mission Statements

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources; and honor its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

Draft EA-15-001

Contents Page

Section 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Need for the Proposed Action ...... 1 Section 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action...... 3 2.1 No Action Alternative ...... 3 2.2 Proposed Action ...... 3 2.2.1 Environmental Commitments ...... 6 Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 9 3.1 Resources Eliminated from Further Analysis ...... 9 3.2 Water Resources ...... 9 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 9 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 16 3.3 Land Use ...... 19 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 19 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 20 3.4 Biological Resources ...... 20 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 20 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 29 3.5 Environmental Justice ...... 30 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 30 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 30 Section 4 Consultation and Coordination ...... 31 4.1 Public Review Period ...... 31 Section 5 Preparers and Reviewers ...... 33 5.1 Reclamation ...... 33 5.2 Westlands Water District ...... 33 Section 6 References ...... 35

Figure 1-1 Project Location ...... 2 Figure 3-1 Mendota Pool Location ...... 11 Figure 3-2 Drainage-Impaired Lands ...... 15 Figure 3-3 Areas of Known Historical and Estimated Future Subsidence ...... 17

Table 2-1 Proposed Discharge Locations ...... 4 Table 2-2 Environmental Protection Measures and Commitments ...... 7 Table 3-1 Resources Eliminated from Further Analysis...... 9 Table 3-2 Westlands Water District Historical Groundwater Pumping Data ...... 13 Table 3-3 Agricultural Products by County ...... 19 Table 3-4 Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat ...... 21 Table 3-5 Demographic Data, 2013 ...... 30

iii

Appendix A Source Well Locations Appendix B Indian Trust Assets Determination Appendix C Cultural Resources Determination

Draft EA-15-001

Section 1 Introduction

1.1 Need for the Proposed Action

The State of California is experiencing unprecedented water management challenges due to severe drought in recent years. Both the State and Federal water projects are forecasting very low storage conditions in all major reservoirs. In addition, South of Delta Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors experienced reduced water supply allocations from 2007 to 2013 due to hydrologic conditions and regulatory requirements. Based on hydrologic conditions, Reclamation declared a 0% allocation for South of Delta CVP contractors for the 2014 Contract Year1. Although there has been some precipitation in the last few months, the drought is expected to continue into the 2015 Contract Year. As a result, South of Delta CVP contractors, such as Westlands Water District, have a need to make the most and best use of limited available supplies.

In order to better manage available water, Westlands Water District has requested a Warren Act Contract to convey non-CVP water in the San Luis Canal for delivery to their in-district agricultural users. They have also requested the flexibility to perform operational exchanges of their available CVP supplies within San Luis Reservoir for storage of the non-CVP water within the reservoir and/or for delivery to agricultural users located upstream of the points of introduction. The purpose of the proposed Warren Act Contract is to convey pumped groundwater and other sources of non-CVP water to areas within the district that could not otherwise receive this water, providing greater water management flexibility to the district and their water users.

1 A Contract Year is from March 1 through February 28/29 of the following year.

1 Draft EA-15-001

Figure 1-1 Project Location

2 Draft EA-15-001

Section 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

This Environmental Assessment (EA) considers two possible actions: the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative reflects future conditions without the Proposed Action and serves as a basis of comparison for determining potential effects to the human environment.

2.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would not issue a Warren Act Contract to Westlands Water District for the introduction of their non-CVP water into the San Luis Canal. As Westlands Water District has an active groundwater pumping program, groundwater would still be pumped out of the aquifer as it has in the past. However, distribution of the non-CVP water would be limited to only those areas that could normally receive the water and would not enable Westlands Water District to provide water supplies to other areas in-district.

2.2 Proposed Action

Reclamation proposes to enter into a five-year Warren Act Contract with Westlands Water District. Under the terms of the contract, Westlands Water District would introduce up to 30,000 acre-feet per year (AF/y) of non-CVP water into the San Luis Canal, in years in which Westlands Water District’s CVP allocation is 20% or less. The period of introduction would be between April 1 and August 31 of a given year. However, if it is not possible to begin conveyance by April 1, 2015, the conveyance period for this year would be shifted by one month, to between May 1 and September 30. All subsequent years would use the April 1 to August 31 window.

The source of the non-CVP water would be pumped groundwater from deep groundwater wells within Westlands Water District, as well as other sources of non-CVP water by way of the Mendota Pool. Potential groundwater sources and proposed discharge locations are listed in Table 2-1, and shown graphically in Appendix A. The amount of water from each source would vary, but the total quantity introduced under the Proposed Action would not exceed a combined volume of 30,000 AF in a given year. Prior to introduction, all wells would be tested to demonstrate compliance with then-current water quality standards for conveyance of non-Project water in the San Luis Canal. Water coming from the Mendota Pool would be tested at the laterals discharging to the San Luis Canal.

3 Draft EA-15-001

Non-CVP water introduced into the San Luis Canal would either be directly delivered to agricultural users located downstream of the points of introduction, or operationally exchanged with Reclamation for a like amount, less conveyance losses, of Westlands Water District’s available water supplies in San Luis Reservoir. Exchanged water would either be delivered to agricultural users located upstream of the points of introduction in Westlands Water District or stored in San Luis Reservoir as non-CVP water for later delivery to Westlands Water District via the San Luis Canal.

Introduction of Westland Water District’s non-CVP water and storage of the exchanged water would be scheduled annually with Reclamation and would be subject to excess capacity, operational constraints, and environmental requirements, as applicable. No Project Use Power would be used for the Proposed Action.

It is Westlands Water District’s intention to use the water in the same year in which it is introduced to federal facilities. However, if Westlands Water District is unable to make use of water introduced into the facilities within the designated window, it may be necessary to carry the water over until it can be put to productive use.

Table 2-1 Proposed Discharge Locations San Luis Canal # Milepost Facility Type State Well ID 1 105.00L Direct Discharge 141202R01 2 105.20L Direct Discharge 141202R02 3 107.10R Direct Discharge 141225D01 4 107.63R Direct Discharge 141319R01 5 108.85L Direct Discharge 141316N05 6 110.49L Direct Discharge 141322P01 7 110.52L Direct Discharge 141323EO2 8 111.02R Direct Discharge 141327E01 9 111.91R Direct Discharge 151305D02 10 113.77 Direct Discharge 141628P01 11 114.00R Direct Discharge 151316L01 12 114.95L Direct Discharge 151407E01 13 115.43L Lateral Lateral 7 Reverse Flow 14 116.91R Direct Discharge 151322M01 15 117.52L Direct Discharge 151419F01 151419Q01 16 118.46R Direct Discharge 151431D02 17 119.56R Direct Discharge 151431D02 18 120.80L Direct Discharge 161404D01 19 122.59RA Direct Discharge 161427P01

4 Draft EA-15-001

San Luis Canal # Milepost Facility Type State Well ID 20 123.05L Direct Discharge 161403H01 21 123.89R Direct Discharge 161424E01 22 124.18L Direct Discharge 161412N02 23 125.33R Direct Discharge 161506P02 24 125.99L Direct Discharge 161518P04 25 126.65L Lateral 12L 161520H01 26 127.40L Direct Discharge 161521L01 161521N03 27 128.49R Direct Discharge 171413A01 28 128.50L Direct Discharge 161533J01 29 128.54L Direct Discharge 161532A06 30 130.81R Direct Discharge 171510M01 31 132.77L Direct Discharge 171513A01 32 133.80L Direct Discharge 171601N03 171623J01 171623M01 181606F01 33 133.81L Direct Discharge 171614Q01 34 135.48RA Direct Discharge 171526A01 35 135.96R Lateral 14R 171526L01 36 136.03L Direct Discharge 171614Q01 171623J01 171623M01 37 137.00R Lateral 15R 171536Q02 38 137.31L Direct Discharge 181606F01 171623J01 171623M01 171614Q01 39 137.83L Direct Discharge 171601N03 40 138.24L Direct Discharge 181605N01 41 139.40L Direct Discharge 181609R01 42 140.55LA Direct Discharge 181617R02 43 141.02R Direct Discharge 181620F01 44 141.55L Direct Discharge 181621Q02 45 142.58R Direct Discharge 181629N02 46 143.00L Direct Discharge 181627N01 47 143.20L Direct Discharge 191610E01 48 146.35L Direct Discharge 181720N02 49 147.75RC Direct Discharge 191720B01 50 152.75L Direct Discharge 191723R01 51 153.10R Direct Discharge 191726H01 52 154.10L Direct Discharge 191836N01 53 155.15L Direct Discharge 191831N01 54 156.36R Direct Discharge 201714K01 201712H01 55 156.37LA Direct Discharge 201806Q01 56 156.40L Lateral 31 201808M01 57 157.98L Direct Discharge 201817G01 58 158.47R Lateral 32 201714R01

5 Draft EA-15-001

San Luis Canal # Milepost Facility Type State Well ID 59 158.95L Direct Discharge 201820E01 60 159.98R Direct Discharge 201830G02 201831C01 61 160.50RA Direct Discharge 201734D01 62 160.68L Direct Discharge 201832E01 63 161.60L Direct Discharge 211805C01 211809D02 64 162.08L Direct Discharge 211805C01 211805M01 65 162.10R Direct Discharge 211806G01 66 162.64L Direct Discharge 211808B01 211809L01 67 163.18R Direct Discharge 211807E01 68 163.59L Direct Discharge 211805M01 211808Q01 69 164.00R Lateral 27R 211818G01 70 164.11R Direct Discharge 211818G03 211817N03 211816P01 211816N01 71 164.55L-A Direct Discharge 211822E01 211823E01 211823D06 72 164.55L-B Direct Discharge 211816P01 211816N01 211822E01 73 164.63R Direct Discharge 211818G03 74 164.95R Direct Discharge 211833G01 211833N02 211829E01 75 166.90R Direct Discharge 211827K02 76 167.04L Lateral 37 211823D06 211919C03 77 167.84R Direct Discharge 221804H01 78 167.86R Direct Discharge 211833N02 211833G01 79 169.21R Direct Discharge 221803B01 80 169.48L Direct Discharge 211835Q01 211835N02 81 169.88L Direct Discharge 221801E01 82 171.50LA Direct Discharge 221812R01

No new facilities or modifications to the San Luis Canal would be authorized. However, some of the existing discharge facilities have licenses which have expired, will expire soon, or could not be identified. Reclamation proposes to issue a combined 25-year authorization for all discharge points involved in the Proposed Action.

2.2.1 Environmental Commitments Westlands Water District shall implement the following environmental protection measures to reduce environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action (Table 2-2). Environmental consequences for resource areas assume the measures specified would be fully implemented. Copies of all reports and monitoring shall be submitted to Reclamation.

6 Draft EA-15-001

Table 2-2 Environmental Protection Measures and Commitments Resource Protection Measure There will be no ground disturbance, new construction or other new Multiple installation without further environmental review and approval. In areas known to be impaired by historic drainage, all groundwater pumped Multiple shall come only from wells screened below the Corcoran Clay layer. Groundwater conveyed under the Proposed Action shall not be applied to Multiple drainage-impaired lands. Westlands Water District shall comply with all applicable ordinances Groundwater regarding export of groundwater. Water quality sampling shall include measurements of groundwater levels. Groundwater Groundwater levels shall be reported to Reclamation. The water shall not be used native lands or lands untilled for three Land Use/ Biological consecutive years or more without additional environmental analysis and Resources approval. Prior to introduction, all wells shall be tested to demonstrate compliance with Water Quality then-current water quality standards for conveyance of non-Project water in the San Luis Canal. Westlands Water District shall only introduce pumped groundwater into the Groundwater San Luis Canal for conveyance in years when their CVP allocation is 20% or less.

7 Draft EA-15-001

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

8 Draft EA-15-001

Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This section identifies the potentially affected environment and the environmental consequences involved with the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative, in addition to environmental trends and conditions that currently exist.

3.1 Resources Eliminated from Further Analysis

Reclamation analyzed the affected environment and determined that the Proposed Action does not have the potential to cause direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects to the resources listed in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Resources Eliminated from Further Analysis Resource Reason Eliminated The Proposed Action is not of a type with a potential to affect Indian Trust Indian Trust Assets assets. See Appendix B. The Proposed Action does not have a potential to affect Cultural Resources, as it involves the conveyance of water through existing facilities for existing Cultural Resources uses. There would be no new construction or modification of facilities. See Appendix C. The Proposed Action does not have a potential to affect Indian Sacred Sites on federal land, as it involves the conveyance of water through existing Indian Sacred Sites facilities for existing uses. There would be no new construction or modification of facilities. The pumps to be used for the Proposed Action are already existing and in Air Quality place. They would be operated with or without the Proposed Action, and do not represent a new source of air emissions. The pumps to be used for the Proposed Action are already existing and in Global Climate place. They would be operated with or without the Proposed Action, and do not represent a new source of greenhouse gas emissions.

3.2 Water Resources

3.2.1 Affected Environment

Surface Water

Westlands Water District Westlands Water District encompasses more than 600,000 acres of farmland located in western Fresno and Kings Counties and serves approximately 600 family-owned farms that average 900 acres in size. The district, located on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, is a part of the San Luis Unit of the CVP, with CVP contracts from the San Luis Unit and the Delta Division totaling 1,150,000 AF/y and permanent reassignments totaling 46,948 AF. Westlands Water District receives water from the CVP by way of the Delta-

9 Draft EA-15-001

Mendota Canal and the San Luis Canal. Once diverted from federal facilities, water is delivered to farmers through 1,034 miles of underground pipe and over 3,300 metered delivery outlets.

In addition to CVP supplies, landowners in Westlands Water District rely on groundwater pumping, water transfers, and/or acquisitions on the open market to supplement their CVP supply. If their water portfolio comes up short, land is temporarily taken out of production (i.e., fallowed).

San Luis Reservoir San Luis Reservoir (also known as B.F. Sisk Dam and Reservoir) is a joint Federal/State facility located on San Luis Creek near Los Banos, California. The reservoir primarily stores water from the Delta, for use by CVP contractors in the western portions of Fresno, Kings and Merced Counties. O’Neill Forebay, which is located adjacent to the reservoir, balances flow and facilitates power operations.

San Luis Canal The San Luis Canal is a joint Federal/State concrete-lined canal with a capacity ranging from 8,350 to 13,100 cubic feet per second. It is the federally-built and operated section of the California Aqueduct and extends 102.5 miles from O’Neill Forebay, near Los Banos, in a southeasterly direction to a point west of Kettleman City. The 138-foot-wide channel is 36 feet deep, 40 feet wide at the bottom, and lined with concrete.

Mendota Pool The Mendota Pool is impounded by Mendota Dam, which is owned and operated by Central California Irrigation District. The Pool primarily serves as a conveyance facility but is also used as a short-term storage and re- regulation reservoir. The Pool is supplied with surface water from the Delta- Mendota Canal (its primary source), the San Joaquin River (during restoration and flood releases from Friant Dam), and the Kings River via Fresno Slough (during flood releases from Pine Flat Dam). In addition, local wells owned by the Mendota Pool Group, Tranquillity Irrigation District, and Fresno Slough Water District also pump groundwater into the Pool, and the Mendota Wildlife Area drains its waterfowl ponds into the Pool during the spring. Most of this water is used by the members of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority (Exchange Contractors) to irrigate lands within their service areas, but there are other CVP contractors that divert water from the Pool for irrigation. See Figure 3-1.

Water quality conditions in the Mendota Pool depend on inflows from the Delta- Mendota Canal, groundwater pumped into the pool and, to a limited extent, river inflows. During the irrigation season, most of the water released from the Mendota Pool to the river and to irrigators is imported from the Delta via the Delta-Mendota Canal. This water has higher concentrations of total dissolved solids than water in the upper reaches of the San Joaquin River, and can be affected by runoff and seepage into the canal (Reclamation 2010).

10 Draft EA-15-001

Figure 3-1 Mendota Pool Location (Reclamation 2010)

11 Draft EA-15-001

Most of the non-CVP water being considered for conveyance to the San Luis Canal by way of the Mendota Pool would come from native groundwater pumped into the pool by districts and landowners located adjacent to it. This is typical of historical operation of the Mendota Pool. According to the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority, 17 different entities pumped groundwater into the pool in 2014, totaling approximately 62,000 AF (Rhodes, pers. comm. 2015).

A portion of the water in the Pool could also come from the Meyers Water Bank. The Water Bank stores surface water underground for use in times of shortage. Since the water comes from surface sources, it is of higher quality than native groundwater.

Groundwater

Groundwater Resources in Westlands The groundwater basin underlying Westlands Water District is comprised generally of two water-bearing zones: (1) an upper zone above a nearly impervious Corcoran Clay layer containing the Coastal and Sierran aquifers and (2) a lower zone below the Corcoran Clay containing the sub-Corcoran aquifer (Department of Water Resources 2003). These water-bearing zones are recharged by subsurface inflow primarily from the west and northeast, and percolation of groundwater, and imported and local surface water. The Corcoran Clay separates the upper and lower water-bearing zones in the majority of Westlands but is not continuous in the western portion of the district.

Groundwater pumping started in this portion of the San Joaquin Valley in the early 1900s. Prior to delivery of CVP water, the annual groundwater pumpage in Westlands ranged from 800,000 to 1,000,000 AF/y during the period of 1950- 1968. The majority of this pumping was from the aquifer below the Corcoran Clay, causing the sub-Corcoran groundwater surface to reach an average elevation of more than 150 feet below mean sea level by 1968 (Westlands Water District 2014a).

After delivery of CVP water supplies into Westlands Water District began, groundwater pumping declined to about 200,000 AF/y, or less, in the 1970s (Department of Water Resources 2003). The reduction in groundwater pumping stabilized groundwater depths and in most portions of the district, groundwater levels significantly recovered. During the early 1990s, groundwater pumping greatly increased because of the reduced CVP water supplies caused by an extended drought and regulatory actions related to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Pumping has since increased and decreased in response to available surface water supplies. Rates for the preceding 10 years are shown in Table 3-2.

12 Draft EA-15-001

Table 3-2 Westlands Water District Historical Groundwater Pumping Data Water Year CVP Allocation Groundwater Pumped (AF) 2005 85% 75,000 2006 100% 25,000 2007 50% 310,000 2008 40% 460,000 2009 10% 480,000 2010 45% 140,000 2011 80% 45,000 2012 40% 355,000 2013 20% 638,000 2014 (est.) 0% 650,000 Source: Westlands Water District 2014b

Westlands Water District has an approved groundwater management plan and estimates the current safe yield of groundwater underneath the district to be approximately 200,000 AF/y. However, this quantity of groundwater is generally only pumped when other supplemental supplies are not available. This is due to the poorer quality of the groundwater compared to surface water. Westlands Water District supplies groundwater to some district farmers and owns some groundwater wells, with the remaining wells privately owned by water users in the district.

Groundwater Regulation In 2014, California enacted the Safe Groundwater Management Act. The Safe Groundwater Management Act requires the formation of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, who must develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans for areas designated as medium or high priority. Under this system, the entire San Joaquin Valley is classified as high priority (Department of Water Resources 2014a). In addition to statewide policies, some local jurisdictions have adopted their own groundwater ordinances. Fresno County has an ordinance which restricts transfer of groundwater outside of the county. Kings County does not have an ordinance at this time.

Groundwater Quality Groundwater zones commonly used along a portion of the western margin of the San Joaquin Valley have high concentrations of total dissolved solids, ranging from 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to greater than 2,000 mg/L (Bertoldi et al. 1991). The concentrations in excess of 2,000 mg/L commonly occur above the Corcoran Clay layer. These high levels have impaired groundwater for irrigation and municipal uses in the western portion of the San Joaquin Valley.

High selenium concentrations in soils on the west side of the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region are of concern because of their potential to leach from the soil by subsurface irrigation return flow into the groundwater and into receiving surface waters. Selenium concentrations in shallow groundwater along the west side have been highest in the central and southern area south of Los Banos and Mendota with median concentrations of 10,000 to 11,000 mg/L (Bertoldi et al. 1991). Westlands Water District policy does not allow water to discharge from any irrigated parcel.

13 Draft EA-15-001

Drainage Plans for agricultural drainage from the San Luis Unit began in the 1960s and 1970s. By 1975, construction was completed on a segment of the San Luis Drain, which collected drainage from a 42,000-acre portion of Westlands Water District, and delivered it to Kesterson Reservoir. However, in 1983, embryonic deformities in aquatic birds were discovered at Kesterson, with elevated selenium concentrations identified as the cause. In 1985, discharges to Kesterson Reservoir ceased, and feeder drains to the San Luis Drain were plugged (Reclamation 2007).

As a result of a lawsuit filed by Westlands Water District and landowners in the area, a Federal Court Order was issued in 1986. The Court Order directed Reclamation to develop plans to provide alternate drainage service to the area. A series of studies and additional court actions through 2001 affirmed that Reclamation had an obligation to provide drainage service to the affected area, but determined that the obligation could be met by means other than the originally-envisioned interceptor drain to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Reclamation 2007).

A series of studies to identify a preferred approach followed, leading to a Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2006 and Record of Decision in 2007. The alternative selected was the “In Valley/Water Needs Land Retirement” alternative. This alternative included measures to reduce drainage, drainage water reuse/treatment facilities, and retirement of 194,000 acres of irrigated land (Reclamation 2007). The area identified as impaired by drainage is shown below in Figure 3-2.

Since the Record of Decision, Reclamation has evaluated a variety of treatment options for managing selenium-enriched drainage water, and impacts from the drainage. As of early 2015, a demonstration project is underway to use a combination of reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, biotreatment and other treatment techniques to treat water collected from sumps in Panoche Drainage District (Reclamation 2012). In addition, as of early 2015, over 90,000 acres of drainage- impaired land have been retired from agricultural production.

14 Draft EA-15-001

Figure 3-2 Drainage-Impaired Lands (Reclamation 2006)

Subsidence Land subsidence is caused by subsurface movement of earth materials. Principal causes of subsidence within the San Joaquin Valley include: aquifer compaction due to groundwater pumping, hydrocompaction caused by application of water to dry soils, and oil mining. Withdrawal of groundwater within the San Joaquin Valley between the 1920s and 1960s for agricultural irrigation caused significant overdraft within the central west side of the valley and most of the southern

15 Draft EA-15-001 valley, causing substantial land subsidence within those areas. Importation of surface water from the CVP and SWP in the 1970s decreased the rate of groundwater withdrawal, allowing aquifer levels to recover and subsequently reducing subsidence rates (Poland and Lofgren 1984, U.S. Geological Survey 2013). Recently, groundwater pumping rates have increased throughout the San Joaquin Valley due to regulatory and drought-related curtailments placed on water deliveries from the CVP and SWP, resulting in water level declines and renewed compaction.

Various entities, including Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey, California Department of Water Resources, San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, and the Exchange Contractors have been monitoring subsidence trends within the Central Valley. In 2011, Reclamation established the San Joaquin River Restoration Program Geodetic Control Network to begin monitoring subsidence with the Restoration Area. In addition, due to significant subsidence rates along the flood control bypasses that parallel the San Joaquin River (some localized areas showing rates of more than 1 foot per year), Department of Water Resources has collected levee survey data to help further refine the estimated annual rates along the levees of the flood bypasses (Reclamation 2014b).

In 2014, the Department of Water Resources issued a summary of historical and projected future subsidence trends in the state (Department of Water Resources 2014b). The analysis showed that the areas with greatest potential for subsidence are those areas where demand on groundwater is the highest, such as the San Joaquin Valley. Westlands Water District is in an area with historical as well as recent subsidence (see Figure 3-3).

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

No Action Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would not permit introduction of non-CVP water into federal facilities. As Westlands Water District has an active groundwater pumping program, groundwater would still be pumped out of the aquifer as it has in the past. However, distribution of the non-CVP water would be limited to only those areas that could normally receive the water and would not enable Westlands Water District to provide water supplies to other areas in- district.

16 Draft EA-15-001

Figure 3-3 Areas of Known Historical and Estimated Future Subsidence (Department of Water Resources 2014b)

Proposed Action

Surface Water The Proposed Action would allow groundwater and other non- CVP water to be conveyed and/or stored in CVP facilities when excess capacity is available. The Proposed Action would not interfere with the normal operations of

17 Draft EA-15-001 the San Luis Canal (as it would be scheduled prior to introduction), nor would it impede any SWP or CVP obligations to deliver water to other contractors or to fish and wildlife habitat.

In 2014, in an action similar to the Proposed Action, Westlands Water District was given authorization to pump up to 30,000 AF of groundwater from many of the same wells, for conveyance with SWP approval in joint facilities. Total dissolved solids values reported for water from the wells at that time ranged from 530 to 1180 mg/L (Rhodes, pers. comm. 2015). This is expected to be representative of the groundwater pumped and conveyed under the Proposed Action. Water in each well would be required to meet then-current water quality standards prior to approval for introduction into the San Luis Canal. If a well to be used for pumping water into the San Luis Canal does not meet standards, no water would be accepted from that source until water quality improves sufficient to meet the requirements.

Some groundwater wells included in the Proposed Action are located in areas known to be impacted by historic drainage (see Figure 3-2 and Appendix A). However, these wells are all screened below the Corcoran Clay layer which separates the shallow and deep aquifers. Therefore, the water pumped from these wells would not come from the layers which are drainage-impaired. The groundwater pumped and conveyed under the Proposed Action would also not be used on land known to be drainage-impaired, and therefore would not mobilize contaminants present in those areas.

Groundwater The Proposed Action could involve the pumping of up to 30,000 AF/y of groundwater at various locations within the district, for conveyance in federal facilities, during years in which their CVP allocation is 20% or less. The water involved in the Proposed Action is within the range of historical pumping during the irrigation season, and would be pumped regardless of whether Reclamation allowed its conveyance in federal facilities. The Proposed Action only allows Westlands Water District’s growers to convey the water to the areas of the district with greatest need.

Westlands Water District shall monitor and report groundwater levels to Reclamation as part of their water quality sampling program.

Subsidence Groundwater pumping is known to be a leading cause of subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley. However, the groundwater to be conveyed under the Proposed Action is within the range of historical pumping by the district, and would be pumped regardless of whether Reclamation allowed its conveyance in federal facilities. Therefore any subsidence associated with this use of groundwater would take place regardless of Reclamation’s decision.

Cumulative Impacts Surface Water The San Luis Canal carries water from CVP, SWP and other sources, for use by contractors located along the San Luis Canal/California

18 Draft EA-15-001

Aqueduct. Poor water quality from multiple sources has the potential to cause a cumulative impact on downstream water users. In order to reduce the risk of cumulative impacts to water quality, all water introduced to the San Luis Canal would be tested prior to introduction, and if water quality standards cannot be met, introductions from that source would not be allowed until water quality standards are met.

Groundwater Many irrigation districts and individual growers in the San Joaquin Valley rely on groundwater as part of their supply, with volumes pumped varying in response to surface water allocations (CVP and SWP), hydrologic conditions and changes in crop patterns. Pumped water may be used directly on- site, sold/transferred, or exchanged for water at another location.

Groundwater overdraft is an ongoing challenge throughout California, and the San Joaquin Valley in particular has been identified as a high priority for establishing a sustainability plan. Overdraft is a cumulative problem, caused by many small actions throughout the basin. However, the Proposed Action only allows conveyance of water that would already be pumped to areas within the district with the greatest need. Therefore there would be no contribution to cumulative impacts to groundwater as a result of the Proposed Action itself.

Subsidence Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley is a cumulative problem, caused by groundwater pumping at many locations throughout the area. Pumping of the groundwater which would be conveyed under the Proposed Action may contribute to ongoing subsidence trends. However, that water is likely to be pumped for agricultural use in similar volumes regardless of Reclamation’s decision. Therefore the Proposed Action itself would not contribute to cumulative subsidence impacts beyond ongoing existing trends.

3.3 Land Use

3.3.1 Affected Environment Westlands Water District is located in Fresno and Kings Counties, in California’s Central Valley. The valley is generally rural and agricultural in nature, with several medium-sized cities located along major transportation corridors. The leading agricultural products in each county are outlined below in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Agricultural Products by County County Major Agricultural Products Fresno Almonds, livestock, raisins, milk, tomatoes Kings Milk, cotton, cattle, tomatoes, walnuts Source: California Farm Bureau Federation 2014

Certain areas in the San Joaquin Valley are impacted by historical drainage practices which left elevated levels of various constituents (primarily selenium) in the shallow soil layers. As a result, the agricultural productivity of those areas is

19 Draft EA-15-001 limited, and application of new water to the affected areas raises a risk that contaminants could become soluble and travel to other areas.

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

No Action Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would not permit introduction of the non-CVP water into federal facilities. As Westlands Water District has an active groundwater pumping program, groundwater would still be pumped out of the aquifer as it has in the past. However, distribution of the non-CVP water would be limited to only those areas that could normally receive the water and would not enable Westlands Water District to provide water supplies to other areas in-district.

Proposed Action The Proposed Action would support current land uses by allowing growers in Westlands Water District to make the most effective use of water that is available to them. Water conveyed in the San Luis Canal would only be used to sustain existing crops. The water would not be used to support new development or convert fallow land for agriculture.

Some groundwater wells included in the Proposed Action are located in areas known to be impacted by drainage (see Figure 3-2). However, as described previously, the wells are all screened below the Corcoran Clay layer which separates the shallow and deep aquifers. Therefore the water pumped from these wells would not come from the layers which are drainage-impaired. The groundwater pumped and conveyed under the Proposed Action would also not be used on land known to be drainage-impaired.

Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Action would allow for more effective use of water supplies in a time of shortage. This helps to mitigate the impacts of external challenges, in particular California’s ongoing drought. Several similar water-moving actions have been authorized or are currently under review. Cumulatively they are expected to provide a benefit to existing land uses.

Since groundwater pumped for the Proposed Action would be drawn from the aquifer below the Corcoran Clay layer, and water would not be applied to the areas known to be drainage-impaired, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to cumulatively contribute to these existing impairments.

3.4 Biological Resources

3.4.1 Affected Environment A species list was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015) on February 10, 2015 (document number:

20 Draft EA-15-001

150210122721). Reclamation utilized that list, records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2015) and other information on file to compile Table 3-4 below.

The Proposed Action Area consists of San Luis Reservoir, the San Luis Canal, Mendota Pool, and lands within Westlands Water District. The only Federally listed species that may occur in the area are the San Joaquin kit fox, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant garter snake, California least tern, and San Joaquin woolly- threads. The only one of these species that can use agricultural lands at all is the San Joaquin kit fox, which can forage (but not den) in crop fields where the fields lie close to native lands (Warrick et al. 2007). The majority of the Proposed Action Area consists of agricultural lands.

Table 3-4 Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat Common Scientific Federal Critical Range/ Occurrence Impacts Name Name Listing Habitat Habitat Use in Status Proposed Action Area Conservancy Branchinecta Endangered Designated Found in turbid Vernal pools No effect; fairy shrimp conservatio vernal pools. are absent no effect from the on critical Proposed habitat Action Area longhorn Branchinecta Endangered Designated Occurs in Vernal pools No effect; fairy shrimp longiantenna multiple types of are absent no effect vernal pools. from the on critical Proposed habitat Action Area vernal pool Branchinecta Threatened Designated Occurs in a Vernal pools No effect; fairy shrimp lynchi variety of vernal and other no effect pools or other similar on critical depressions depressions habitat that have a are absent similar from the hydrology Proposed Action Area valley Desmocerus Threatened Designated Requires Elderberry No effect; elderberry californicus elderberry shrubs do not no effect longhorn dimorphus shrubs with occur around on critical beetle stems one inch the edge of habitat or greater in San Luis diameter at Reservoir or ground level in actively farmed lands or at Meyers Water Bank vernal pool Lepidurus Endangered Designated Found in a wide Vernal pools No effect; tadpole packardi range of vernal are absent no effect shrimp pool types; has from the on critical a disjunct Proposed habitat range. Action Area

21 Draft EA-15-001

Common Scientific Federal Critical Range/ Occurrence Impacts Name Name Listing Habitat Habitat Use in Status Proposed Action Area North Acipenser Threatened Designated Inhabits the The Proposed No effect; American medirostris Sacramento Action Area is no effect green San-Joaquin outside of the on critical sturgeon Delta and species’ habitat spawns in the range. White Sacramento sturgeon River. have been found in San Luis Reservoir, but not green sturgeon. Owens tui Gila bicolor Endangered Designated Found only in a The Proposed No effect; chub snyderi limited number Action Area is no effect of populations in outside of the on critical the Owens species’ habitat River Valley, range. where it inhabits standing water or low-gradient rivers and streams. delta smelt Hypomesus Threatened Designated Occurs in the The Proposed No effect; transpacificus Sacramento- Action Area is no effect San Joaquin outside of the on critical Delta. species’ habitat range. Lahontan Oncorhynchus Threatened None Found in cold- The Proposed No effect cutthroat clarki water habitats in Action Area is trout henshawi the Lahontan outside of the Basin. species’ range. Paiute Oncorhynchus Threatened None Currently found The Proposed No effect cutthroat clarki seleniris in a few Action Area is trout populations in outside the of the Inyo and the species’ Sierra National range. Forests; eliminated from its historic range within the Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest. Central Oncorhynchus Threatened Designated Occurs in the The Proposed No effect; Valley mykiss Sacramento Action Area is no effect steelhead and San- outside the of on critical Joaquin Delta, the species’ habitat and spawns and range. rears in parts of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems.

22 Draft EA-15-001

Common Scientific Federal Critical Range/ Occurrence Impacts Name Name Listing Habitat Habitat Use in Status Proposed Action Area Central Oncorhynchus Threatened Designated Occurs in the The Proposed No effect; Valley tshawytscha Sacramento Action Area is no effect spring-run and San- outside the of on critical chinook Joaquin Delta, the species’ habitat salmon and spawns and range. rears in parts of the Sacramento River system; is being re- introduced to the upper San Joaquin River. Sacramento Oncorhynchus Endangered Designated Occurs in the The Proposed No effect; River winter- tshawytscha Sacramento Action Area is no effect run chinook and San- outside the of on critical salmon Joaquin Delta, the species’ habitat and spawns and range. rears in parts of the Sacramento River system. California Ambystoma Threatened Designated Breeds in vernal Vernal pools No effect; tiger californiense pools and other and other no effect salamander similar ponds suitable on critical (central and uses rodent breeding habitat population) burrows in ponds do not surrounding occur in the grasslands for Proposed refugia during Action Area. the non- breeding season. California Rana draytonii Threatened Designated Uses foothill The Proposed No effect; red-legged streams and Action Area no effect frog ponds; has does not on critical been eliminated include any habitat from the San suitable Joaquin Valley habitat for this floor. The species and species and its is outside of critical habitat its critical occur just to the habitat. west of San Luis Reservoir, but not in the reservoir itself. Mountain Rana muscosa Endangered Proposed Occurs in high The Proposed No effect; yellow- mountain Action Area is no effect legged frog streams in parts outside the of on critical (northern of the Sierra the species’ habitat population) Nevada (south range. of the Monarch Divide), mostly on National Park or National Forest lands.

23 Draft EA-15-001

Common Scientific Federal Critical Range/ Occurrence Impacts Name Name Listing Habitat Habitat Use in Status Proposed Action Area Sierra Rana sierrae Endangered Proposed Occurs in high The Proposed No effect; Nevada mountain Action Area is no effect yellow- streams in parts outside the of on critical legged frog of the Sierra the species’ habitat Nevada (north range. of the range of the mountain yellow-legged frog), and parts of the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada. Yosemite Anaxyrus Threatened Proposed Uses wet The Proposed No effect; toad canorus meadows and Action Area is no effect surrounding outside the of on critical forest in parts of the species’ habitat the Sierra range. Nevada. blunt-nosed Gambelia sila Endangered None Found in alkali Blunt-nosed No effect; leopard scrub and arid leopard the water lizard grassland lizards may involved in habitat in parts occur on the the of the San western-most Proposed Joaquin Valley edges of Action and adjacent Westlands cannot be areas (such as Water District, used to the Carrizo but not on bring Plain). actively- native farmed lands lands into production . giant garter Thamnophis Threatened None Found in and Does not No effect. snake gigas near wetland occur in the The habitat in Proposed Proposed Mendota Pool Action Area. Action and the would not Grasslands. generate any drainage that would travel into the Grassland Bypass Area. western Charadrius Threatened Designated A coastal Not known to No effect; snowy plover alexandrinus shorebird; occur in the no effect nivosus occasionally Proposed on critical found inland at Action Area, habitat evaporation which is ponds. outside of the typical range. Not expected due to lack of evaporation ponds.

24 Draft EA-15-001

Common Scientific Federal Critical Range/ Occurrence Impacts Name Name Listing Habitat Habitat Use in Status Proposed Action Area Western Coccyzus Threatened Proposed Uses extensive The species No effect; yellow-billed americanus cottonwood- could fly no effect cuckoo occidentalis willow forests; overhead on on critical currently its migration habitat restricted in to and from California to a breeding portion of the habitat along Sacramento the River, the Kern Sacramento River, and the River and Colorado River. wintering grounds in South America, but would not otherwise use the Proposed Action Area. California Gymnogyps Endangered Designated Forages for This species’ No effect; condor californianus carrion in large habitat does no effect expanses of not occur in on critical foothill and oak the Proposed habitat savanna ringing Action Area the southern and there are San Joaquin no records of Valley floor. its occurrence in the area. California Sternula Endangered None Normally nests Has been No effect. least tern antillarum (recommend on sandy documented Least browni ed for coastal habitat foraging at terns downlisting and forages for sewage would not to small fish. ponds on be Threatened) Sometimes can Lemoore affected be found inland Naval Air because where open Station. the water with small Monitoring in Proposed fish is found. 2014 of the Action San Luis would not Drain in and contribute adjacent to to any Westlands drainage Water District that could did not result contamina in any least te tern potential observations. foraging habitat, such as the San Luis Drain.

25 Draft EA-15-001

Common Scientific Federal Critical Range/ Occurrence Impacts Name Name Listing Habitat Habitat Use in Status Proposed Action Area giant Dipodomys Endangered None Occurs in arid Does not No effect kangaroo rat ingens grasslands and occur in the saltbush scrub Proposed in Kern County Action Area. and a few other south San Joaquin Valley locations. The closest population to the Proposed Action Area is the Kettleman Hills in Kings County. Fresno Dipodomys Endangered Designated Uses alkali sink Does not No effect; kangaroo rat nitratoides and arid occur in the no effect exilis grassland Proposed on critical habitat; Action Area. habitat historical occurrences at and near the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve and Madera Ranch. A possible Fresno/Tipton hybrid population may still occur at Lemoore Naval Air Station. Tipton Dipodomys Endangered None Generally only Does not No effect kangaroo rat nitratoides occurs south of occur in the nitratoides the Proposed Proposed Action Area, Action Area. although there may be a very small Fresno/Tipton hybrid population near the Proposed Action Area (see above). Sierra Ovis Endangered Designated Found in remote Proposed No effect; Nevada canadensis arid mountain Action Area is no effect bighorn californiana habitat in the outside the on critical sheep southern Sierra species’ habitat Nevada. range.

26 Draft EA-15-001

Common Scientific Federal Critical Range/ Occurrence Impacts Name Name Listing Habitat Habitat Use in Status Proposed Action Area Buena Vista Sorex ornatus Endangered Designated Uses Proposed No effect; Lake shrew relictus riparian/wetland Action Area is no effect habitat. Critical outside the on critical habitat occurs species’ habitat near but outside range. of Westlands Water District. San Joaquin Vulpes Endangered None Prefers saltbush Records of No effect. kit fox macrotis scrub and arid the species The mutica grassland are known Proposed habitat, but can from the Action use agricultural Proposed would not lands for Action Area. result in foraging within a any land mile or so of use occupied change. habitat. fisher Pekania Proposed None Occupies Proposed No effect pennanti Threatened montane forest Action Area is habitat outside the species’ range. Mariposa Calyptridium Threatened None Occurs on Proposed No effect pussy-paws pulchellum decomposed Action Area is granite in outside the foothills of species’ south-central range. Sierra Nevada. San Benito Camissonia Threatened None Found on Proposed No effect evening- benitensis serpentine- Action Area is primrose derived alluvial outside the soils in western species’ Fresno and San range. Benito Counties. succulent Castilleja Threatened Designated Occurs in vernal Vernal pools No effect; owl's-clover campestris pool habitat in are absent no effect ssp. southern Sierra from the on critical succulenta Nevada Proposed habitat foothills. Action Area. California Caulanthus Endangered None Occurs in Does not No effect jewelflower californicus saltbush scrub occur in the and arid Proposed grasslands; Action Area. there are three Has been known naturally- eliminated occurring from the area, populations: although still Carrizo Plain, found in the Santa Barbara Kreyenhagen Canyon, and Hills. the Kreyenhagen Hills in Fresno County.

27 Draft EA-15-001

Common Scientific Federal Critical Range/ Occurrence Impacts Name Name Listing Habitat Habitat Use in Status Proposed Action Area Hoover's Chamaesyce Threatened Designated Found in vernal Vernal pools No effect; spurge hooveri pools (usually are absent no effect deeper pools) in from the on critical the Sierra Proposed habitat Nevada Action Area foothills. palmate- Cordylanthus Endangered None Occurs in alkali Suitable No effect bracted palmatus sink habitat. habitat no bird's-beak longer occurs in the Proposed Action Area. San Joaquin Monolopia Endangered None Found in arid May still The woolly- congdonii grasslands and occur on the Proposed threads saltbush scrub western Action habitat. fringes of would not Westlands result in Water District. any land use change. Colusa grass Neostapfia Threatened Designated Occurs in vernal Vernal pools No effect; colusana pools; some of are absent no effect the known from the on critical locations are Proposed habitat spread far apart Action Area and it may occur in other localities where it hasn’t been verified yet. San Joaquin Orcuttia Threatened Designated Found in vernal Vernal pools No effect; Valley Orcutt inaequalis pools in the are absent no effect grass southern Sierra from the on critical Nevada Proposed habitat foothills. Action Area hairy Orcutt Orcuttia pilosa Endangered Designated Occurs in vernal Vernal pools No effect; grass pools. Known are absent no effect both from the from the on critical northeastern Proposed habitat Sacramento Action Area Valley and the southern Sierra Nevada foothills. Hartweg's Pseudobahia Endangered None Found in Proposed No effect golden bahiifolia grasslands and Action Area is sunburst oak woodlands outside the on the east side species’ of the San range. Joaquin Valley and foothills. Usually on fine- textured soils with Mima mounds present.

28 Draft EA-15-001

Common Scientific Federal Critical Range/ Occurrence Impacts Name Name Listing Habitat Habitat Use in Status Proposed Action Area San Joaquin Pseudobahia Threatened None Found in Proposed No effect adobe peirsonii grasslands Action Area is sunburst along the outside the eastern side of species’ the southern range. San Joaquin Valley Keck's Sidalcea keckii Endangered Designated Found in Proposed No effect; checker- grasslands in Action Area is no effect mallow the Sierra outside the on critical Nevada species’ habitat foothills. range. Greene's Tuctoria Endangered Designated Found in Vernal pools No effect; tuctoria greenei different types are absent no effect of vernal pools. from the on critical Proposed habitat Action Area.

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences

No Action Under the No Action, lands in Westlands Water District would either continue to be farmed with other water supplies or would be fallowed. It is unlikely that this would change the current distribution or abundance of Federally listed species in the Proposed Action Area, as the fallowed fields would typically be regularly disced, and so would not revert to a more suitable condition for the few species in the area, such as the San Joaquin kit fox.

Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, the water would help to keep agricultural lands in production. No native lands or lands fallowed and untilled for three or more years could be brought into production with the use of the water involved in the Proposed Action. The water introduced into the San Luis Canal would not mix with any wildlife refuge supplies, as none are delivered from that facility. No drainage would be generated that could make its way into aquatic habitat potentially used by the giant garter snake or California least tern.

Reclamation has determined that the Proposed Action would not impact any Federally listed or proposed species or critical habitat.

Cumulative Impacts As the Proposed Action would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to biological resources, it would not contribute cumulatively to any impacts.

29 Draft EA-15-001

3.5 Environmental Justice

3.5.1 Affected Environment Westlands Water District is located in Fresno and Kings Counties. The demographics of the counties are comparable to California’s, except that the proportion of the population who identify as Hispanic or Latino is higher, and the percentage who identify as Asian is lower. See Table 3-5 below for more information.

Table 3-5 Demographic Data, 2013 Native Black or Hawaiian/ Hispanic Total African American Pacific or Population White American Indian Asian Islander Latino Fresno County 955,272 77.4% 5.9% 3.0% 10.5% 0.3% 51.6% Kings County 150,960 81.4% 7.4% 3.0% 4.3% 0.3% 52.7% California 38,332,521 73.5% 6.6% 1.7% 14.1% 0.5% 38.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences

No Action Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would not permit Westlands Water District to introduce pumped groundwater and other sources of non-CVP water into the San Luis Canal. Growers would have to find alternative supplies of water, provide for alternative conveyance path(s), and/or temporarily take land out of production. Farm laborers often come from minority and low-income communities. Therefore reductions in agricultural productivity would have a disproportionate, adverse impact on those communities.

Proposed Action The Proposed Action would support agriculture by allowing conveyance of groundwater and other sources of non-CVP water to support existing crops. Since farm laborers often come from minority and low-income communities, supporting farm employment is a benefit to those disadvantaged groups.

Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Action would allow conveyance of water to support agriculture in a time of shortage. Because of agriculture’s importance to the area’s economy, any impacts, either positive or negative, tend to have a disproportionate and cumulative effect on employment and wages. Farm laborers often come from low-income and minority populations and they are therefore disproportionately affected by these trends. Several similar water-moving actions have been authorized or are currently under review. Cumulatively they are expected to provide a benefit to the economic well-being of disadvantaged groups.

30 Draft EA-15-001

Section 4 Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Public Review Period

Reclamation intends to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft Finding of No Significant Impact and Draft EA during a 15 day public review period.

31 Draft EA-15-001

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

32 Draft EA-15-001

Section 5 Preparers and Reviewers

5.1 Reclamation

Ben Lawrence, Natural Resources Specialist, SCCAO Shauna McDonald, Wildlife Biologist, SCCAO Joanne Goodsell, Archaeologist, MP-153 Richard Stevenson, ITA, MP-400 Rain L. Emerson, Supervisory Natural Resources Specialist, SCCAO – reviewer Joy Kelley, Repayment Specialist, SCCAO – reviewer David E. Hyatt, Resources Management Division Chief, SCCAO – reviewer

5.2 Westlands Water District

Mark Rhodes, Resources Analyst- Reviewer

33 Draft EA-15-001

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

34 Draft EA-15-001

Section 6 References

Bertoldi, G.L., R. H. Johnston, and K.D. Evenson. 1991. Ground water in the Central Valley, California – a summary report. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper. 1401-A.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2006. San Luis Drainage Feature Re- evaluation, Final Environmental Impact Statement. May 2006.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2007. San Luis Drainage Feature Re- evaluation, Record of Decision. March 9, 2007.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2010. Environmental Assessment 09-156, Five-year Warren Act Contracts for Banta-Carbona Irrigation District, Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, Patterson Irrigation District, and West Stanislaus Irrigation District. March 2, 2010.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2012. Environmental Assessment 10-030, San Luis Drainage Feature Reevaluation Demonstration Treatment Facility at Panoche Drainage District. June 7, 2012.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2013a. Environmental Assessment 12- 061, 10-Year Exchange and/or Warren Act Contracts for Conveyance of Groundwater in the Delta Mendota Canal (DMC pump-in program). January 10, 2013.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2013b. Environmental Assessment 11- 013, Amendment to the Meyers Groundwater Banking Exchange Agreement. September 16, 2013.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2014a. Environmental Assessment 14- 011, Friant-Kern Canal Groundwater Pump-In Program Warren Act Agreements. May 2, 2014.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2014b. Draft Technical Memorandum: Subsidence Monitoring. San Joaquin River Restoration Program. June 20, 2014.

California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California's Ground Water, Bulletin 118-update 2003.

California Department of Water Resources. 2014a. Sustainable Groundwater Management. Website:

35 Draft EA-15-001

http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/index.cfm. Accessed February 2015.

California Department of Water Resources. 2014b. Summary of Recent, Historical, and Estimated Potential for Future Land Subsidence in California. 2014.

California Farm Bureau Federation. 2014. County Farm Bureaus. Website: http://www.cfbf.com/CFBF/CountyFarmBureaus/CFBF/CountyFarmBure aus/Default.aspx. Accessed January 2015.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2015. RareFind 3 electronic database. Government version.

Poland, J.F. and B.E. Lofgren. 1984. Case History No. 9.13. San Joaquin Valley, California, U.S.A. in Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal. J.F. Poland (Ed). Prepared for the International Hydrological Programme, Working Group 8.4. Website: http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/rgws/Unesco/ Accessed: November 6, 2009.

Rhodes, Mark (Westlands Water District). 2015. Personal communication with Ben Lawrence (Bureau of Reclamation). February 6, 2015.

San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. 1990. A Management Plan for Agricultural Subsurface Drainage and Related Problems on the Westside San Joaquin Valley. Final Report (a.k.a. “The Rainbow Report”). Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior and California Resources Agency. September 1990.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. State and County QuickFacts. Website: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed January 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Federal Species List (document No. 150210122721). Website: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists- form.cfm.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2013. Land Subsidence along the Delta-Mendota Canal in the Northern Part of the San Joaquin Valley, California, 2003-10. Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5142. Website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5142/.

Warrick, G. D., H. O. Clark, Ir., P. A. Kelly, D. F. Williams, and B. L. Cypher . 2007. Use of agricultural lands by San Joaquin kit foxes. Western North American Naturalist 67:270- 277.

36 Draft EA-15-001

Westlands Water District. 2014a. Deep Groundwater Conditions Report. May 2014.

Westlands Water District. 2014b. Annual Water Use and Supply. Website: http://www.westlandswater.org/resources/watersupply/supply.asp?title=Ann ual%20Water%20Use%20and%20Supply. Accessed February 2015.

37 Draft EA-15-001

Appendix A Source Well Locations

ity _ !

! ttleman C ttleman

! K 6

1 ! 1

¤ £ 4

6 .

μ !

a J.RANGEL BY DRAWN

! J AND

! .

! S 2

2 _

! al 559.241.6277559.224.1523 FAX

1 n 3

e LOCATION INJECTION SLC

! v

3 !

1 ! 3130 N. FRESNO, FRESNO CALIFORNIA ST. 93703

LOCATIONS OF GROUND WATER WELLS GROUND OF WATER LOCATIONS 6

3 !

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT WATER WESTLANDS

1 !

6 3 ! DWG Date: 11/14/14 DRAWING No. 2014-W-0038 ! R:\DWGS\Archived\2014-W-0038\2014-W-0038.mxd

¤ £ 3 ! 6

! 1

! 6 3

! 1

1 3 ! .

! S

1 6 3 ! 2

Miles 6

1 1

! 3

! 6

! 1

¨ ¦ § 5

1 3

! uron

9 6

3 ! 6 ¤ £

_ .

E 1

! l

Do 1

r .A

o 6

.N 9 3 ¤ £ 1 L !

! n

m r

M 1

3 !

! 6

1 !

1 3

. !

9 E 9 ! S

! 2

! 1 3

1 !

1 0246810

! 3

5 ! S 4 ¤ £

1 9

! 1 1 3

_ !

6 3

oin !

1 ! 1

3 ive

. F !

! 8 E 8

e !

y y !

it !

. Wh .

! t

6 M

! 1 1 3

! 3

1 3

6 .

3 !

! 8

! 1

! 6

! 3

! 6 3

! 3

. !

7 E 7 !

ek !

re !

a C a !

! 6 an

n !

_ 1 1

qui ! 6 a

! 3

31 !

San Jo San

¤ £ 3

! 17 S. 17

_ !

Tranquillity

! 16 E. 16

¨ ¦ § 5

! 1 31

! 6

! 36

1 ! 31 2014 Location Possible FutureLocation Participant 2014 Participant Future Possible Participant Past

! S.

¤ £ 180 36 ! 1

SLC CanalSLC Injection Location Groundwater Source

! 31 6

1 ! 31

! 6

36 !

15 E. 15 ! 36

Panoche

Mendota !

! 6

! Britz Peck Settlement District Water Broadview Sagouspe Settlement L.N.A.S.

Belmont Ave. Belmont

1 !

31 !

WWD Acquired WWD Lands

36 15 S. 15

! !

5 6 !

! 6

! 36

14 E. 14

Firebaugh

14 S. 14 6 City Canal Luis San San Luis Drain WWD Boundary 1998 Agreement Final-Settlement Range / Town

13 E. 13 Legend !!!

13 S. 13 12 E. 12 Draft EA-15-001

Appendix B Indian Trust Assets Determination From: Richard Stevenson

Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2014

To: Benjamin Lawrence

Subject: Westlands Water District Groundwater Warren Act

Ben,

I reviewed the proposed action whereby Westlands Water District has requested a Warren Act Contract to convey and store up to 30,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater in San Luis Canal and San Luis Reservoir. The Warren Act Contract would be for a period of five years, and the non-project groundwater would be introduced into the Canal between April 1 and August 31 during the contract period. The water would come from a combination of deep groundwater wells within Westlands, and groundwater purchased from water districts and private entities adjacent to the Mendota Pool who have existing Mendota Pool pump-in programs.

Water would be discharged to the Canal using existing pipes and laterals. Some licenses for existing pipes will need to be renewed, but no new discharge points would be installed. The location and type of each discharge point is shown in the attached spreadsheet.

The proposed action does not have a potential to affect Indian Trust Assets.

Richard M. Stevenson Deputy Regional Resources Manager

Draft EA-15-001

Appendix C Cultural Resources Determination CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE Mid-Pacific Region Division of Environmental Affairs Cultural Resources Branch

MP-153 Tracking Number: 15-SCAO-060

Project Name: Westlands Water District Groundwater Warren Act

NEP A Document: EA -IS -00 I

MP-153 Cultural Resources Reviewer: Jomme Goodsell ~

Date: January 12, 20 IS

At the request of Westlands Water District (Westlands), Reclamation proposes to approve a 5-Year Warren Act Contract to convey up to 30,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater into San Luis Canal and San Luis Reservoir. The groundwater would come from existing wells within Westlands and groundwater purchased from water districts and private entities adjacent to the Mendota Pool who have existing Mendota Pool pump-in progran1S. Water would be discharged into the San Luis Canal using existing pipes and laterals. The proposed action would require the renewal of some licenses for existing discharge pipes, but would require no new di scharge point construction or installation.

Reclamation has determined that the proposed action would have no impacts to cultural resources and is an undertaking that has no potential to cause effects on historic properties pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.3(a)(1). At thi s time, Reclamation has no further obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.c. § 300101 el seq.) related to the proposed action.

This document communicates the completion of the NHP A Section 106 review process for this undertaking. If there are any changes to the proposed action prior to implementation, additional Section 106 review would be required. Please retain a copy of this document with the administrative record for this action